éirígí gives a message to the British

by Con Carroll Mon Nov 03, 2008 14:34

nice one
where were those who tell us at every public platform that they are given up and down lenght and breath of this country yesterday. that they are anti war
when political issues are close too home we know who the activists are.
someone said that people from swp wouldnt turn up because it could bee seen as sectarian what a load of nonsense
I was present with families relatives demanding justice.

by Disgusted Mon Nov 03, 2008 18:14

The so called Irish anti war movement and the likes of the swp and the sp have been totally discredited by their absence from protesting against this grotesque charade.

Military troops return from illegal occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq and march through an Irish city and the Irish anti-war movement doesnt consider it worthwhile to protest?

Says it all really

by clarification Mon Nov 03, 2008 20:46

Clarification re: point about atheism/anti-catholicism & republicanism -

What I in fact was attesting to was (1.) the inherently anti-sectarian nature of republicanism (and the logical corrollary that thinking republicans actively factor in & express this anti-sectarianism into their activism), and (2.) that the republican struggle is an anti-colonial/anti-imperiaIist struggle (and therefore opposition to Sunday's victory parade must be seen in that context).

That an 'anti-war' movement would fail to mount opposition, in it's own country', to an exercise in imperialist triumphalism such that we witnessed yesterday (with active loyalist paramilitary involvement), is fairly conclusive confirmation of its (IAWM/AWI) reactionary nature. Yesterday was nothing more than an imperialist army celebrating the continued occupation of Afghanistan AND Ireland and the defeat of the PIRA

by francis hughes Mon Nov 03, 2008 21:07

i agree, their silence is deafening. Very dissapointed the IAWM didnt mobilise their people. I went up there as an anti war activist and some local people commented on it. I was embarassed at the partitionist attitude of these anti war activists. u would think some of them care more about far flung conflicts then their own people. They missed out on major publicity as well. sayin that i was also unhappy that there was different republican protests. I think it was a day for everyone to link up for a big one.

by cropbeye - Citizen at large Mon Nov 03, 2008 21:26

Well done to Eirigi and to

the Anarchists and everyone else who took part.

by eirigi supporter - none Tue Nov 04, 2008 17:17

Sundays protest organised by Eirigi was in my view a complete success.Despite the preceding weeks sickening campaign of black propaganda and subtle intimidation of members of relatives for justice and residents of West Belfast not to attend due to risk of violence the protest passed of without the occurance of the pre warned violence.The event was organised and managed extremely well with an emphasis on public safety in my opinion.Speakers spoke with true conviction while totally avoiding rabble rousing.

I was there myself and went along with some concern for public safety but soon realised on witnessing the extent of the PSNI security operation and their garb(dressed in full riot gear with shields adorned)that the only risk to public safety would be as a consequence of senior Republican leaders whom should have known better winding everybody up with loose threats of violence.I was glad that I had dismissed these attempts to prevent people from going to support which was the only organised protest up until a week ago but it was clear who the PSNI had been listening to(stark contrast between attire and equiptment worn by PSNI at Sinn Fein protest and PSNI who were confronted by Loyalist mob at RIR Parade and PSNI at Eirigi protest).

Well done,I will certainly be attending future events organised by Eirigi and dismissing any claims that they are a rabble intent on causing trouble.

by lulu Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:11

Saying 'THE British' is a tad misleading, as most Brits I know oppose the wars and the occupation of North Ireland - it just presents a false unity, like saying 'the Irish allow US military flights through Shannon'

by Frank Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:03

éirigi invited other groups to attend but insisted that other groups could not bring their own banners etc. So exactly how many of those who marched were éirigi people? What's the point in inviting other groups to attend but insisting that those groups cannot attend as themselves? What are éirigi afraid of exactly?

by Eirigi supporter - None Wed Nov 05, 2008 18:29

Several months ago Eirigi announced its intentions to protest at Sundays RIR parade and made public its intentions.As far as i know other groups followed on their individual merits.Some for genuine reasons of protest against a public display of normalisation and others because they knew if they did nothing many of their supporters opposed to the parade might attend the Eirigi protest challenging their position.Sinn Fein protested individually and republican affiliates to the republican network for unity protested seperately also.

Frank your comment appears to contain a sentiment of elitism aimed at Eirigi,this point has been well raised in the past and duly defeated.The truth is that by each group or grouping organising seperately a massive security headache was presented to the security forces which required an unprecedented security operation.

The cost of any counter protest security operation was going to be and turned out to be astronomical.This was the only way to both attempt to force the cancelation of the display of normalisation due to possible security costs(as Brits hold this more important than the feelings of the families of victims of RIR/UDR violence)and to actually expose the fact that the six counties is still in military occupation and not normal.

Sentiments of elitism are both diversary and diversionary.The days events were a complete success.All main republican groups held protests with the only display of violence coming from loyalists and the only expression of predicted threat coming fron the PSNI aimed towards republicans.The truth behind the veil of normalisation has been exposed.

P.S spoken as an eirigi supporter and not a spokesperson.

by Peachie Wed Nov 05, 2008 19:35

"as Brits hold this more important than the feelings of the families of victims of RIR/UDR violence"
What a noble sentiment.
No doubt you feel the same then about the IRA victims and families of IRA victims who see IRA members who ruined their lives helping to run the government in the North.

by Frank Wed Nov 05, 2008 20:18

Mo chara your charge of elitisim against me is a weak attempt to deflect attention away from what I am saying. Eirigi specifically contacted individual organisations inviting them to attend but adding the caveat that they could only do so if they did not bring any of their own banners. It wasn't a case of a public announcement with certain conditions attached but a specific contact asking organisations to attend but without banners etc. Why would they do this? Is it not elitist to demand that other organisations can only join so long as they remain invisible but yet eirigi alone can claim the kudos for the increase in numbers attending? What is eirigi's problem with being seen alonside other republican organisations? Its is a simple enough question in response to eirigis own specific conduct.

by Eirigi supporter - None Thu Nov 06, 2008 01:54

Peachie maybe we can address the isssue of your comment when PIRA apply to Belfast City Council and achieve approval to march armed and in full military regalia down the Shankil Road.

by inniu Thu Nov 06, 2008 14:11

Is anyone going to answer Frank's question honestly? It's an important enough issue. One can not say to be in favour of unity and adopt an elitist attitude when people seek to unite around issues.

by Eirigi supporter - None Thu Nov 06, 2008 15:01

I did not nor would not accuse you of elitism,mo chara.However i did detect a veiled attempt in your original comment to accuse Eirigi of elitism which you later not only insinuated further to this effect but directly posed the actual question and some points which you raised which i suspect were made with the purpose of supporting your opinion as regards the allegation of elitism.A little bit vague and indirect but your opinion anyway not everybodies.

I as a seasoned campaigner and protester do not think it elitist or even unusual for an organisation to publicly announce an event under its own name to extend invitations to other interested or like minded groups with a requesite that only banners reflecting the organisers name should be present.I have only your word for it that this process of inviting attendees conditionally was initiated by Eirigi and not a reasonable response from Eirigi to a request made by other groups to attend.

Furthermore i suspect you are veiling a cynical attempt to run down the numbers of actual Eirigi supporters who were actually present in the 400 strong crowd by suggesting that the numbers may have been made up from members of other groups.Why would members of other groups attend when all other interested parties held their own protests at the same time across Belfast?
Is it not the case that the Sinn Fein protest march began before Eirigi protest on the day in the City Centre?
Is it not the case that The Forum For Irish Unity held their protest in the Markets area of West Belfast at the same time of Eirigi protest?
If the scenario you are trying to create is the case and members of other groups as mentioned above chose to attend an Eirigi protest instead of one organised by their own group then i feel that says more about where they wish to place their support then it does to support your cynical view that Eirigi bumped the numbers by slight of hand.

As regards the question "what is Eirigi problem standing alongside other groups?",i can probably answer that being someone who has been on other protests with some Eirigi members present alongside members of other organisations at events organised by Eirigi and visa versa and that is that i have seen no evidence that they have a problem.This was further supported by the fact that some Eirigi members went to the Markets on Sunday following their protest to lend support.

by ? Thu Nov 06, 2008 15:46

"This was further supported by the fact that some Eirigi members went to the Markets on Sunday following their protest to lend support."
To who? There was no one there.

Can we have an answer to the question originally posed. Why does eirigi not permit other organisations to hold their own banners, despite issuing invites, etc?

by JM - Socialist Democracy Thu Nov 06, 2008 16:13

A article which addresses many of the isues raised in the above posts appears on the Socialist Democracy website.

see:
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/Recent....html

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Thu Nov 06, 2008 16:29 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

I would like to congratulate Eirigi for organising a protest in Belfast against the parade by NATO troops through the city as they celebrate their continuing Imperialists wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

The fact that Northern Ireland is and has been part of NATO for nearly 60 years is one of the main reasons why Britain has been able to maintain its occupation of part of Ireland. Now as it comes up to its 60th birthday next April, NATO will be celebrating its massively expanded global role. The EU/US/NATO axis not only is engaged in Imperial wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and via its ally Israel in Palestine as well, it also theatens war on Iran and a proxy war with Russia by arming Georgia an placing missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

by Another eirigi supporter Thu Nov 06, 2008 18:25

The suggestion that eirigi is an elitist organisation is only the latest red herring to surface over the last couple of years. It seems to be replacing 'eirigi are a Sinn Fein front' myth which was peddled a while back there.

With regard to the 'elitism' slur I think people need to understand the difference between events that are organised by broad fronts and those that are organised by individual organisations. Both serve different purposes and both have a role to play in struggle.

Firstly - lets nail this 'elitist' bullshit. éirígi has proven itself more than willing to play a role in broad fronts as demonstrated by their participation in Shell to Sea, Irish Anti-War Movement, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, Campaign Against the European Constitution, Palestinian/Basque/Cuban/Venezuelan solidarity committees etc etc. Anyone who has been involved in any of these campaigns will bear testament to the fact that eirigi are anything but elitist in their approach to these broad fronts.

With regard to organisations calling 'stand alone' protests it is the norm in my experience that other groups dont turn up to these protests with party banners in tow. It is well within the rights of any organisation to decide how their protest will be conducted and what banners/placards etc will be displayed. I think some posters are being more then a little disingenous if they are saying that eirigi is unusual in this regard.

eirigi's protest on Sunday was clearly the latter and not the former.

With regard to eirigi communicating with other groups in advance of the protest it is wrong to say that eirigi invited organisations but only on the basis of those same organisations not displaying party banners. In fact eirigi did not invite other groups but instead contacted other groups and informed them of the format of the protest including the fact that only eirigi banners would be displayed. The communication also asked each group to inform its members of the format with a view to avoiding embarrament or confusion on the day if - and this is an important point - any of the members of a given group intended coming along on Sunday. Given the amount of hype that there was in advance of the demo that seems to me like an entirely intelligent, respectful and courteous thing to do.

On the suggestion that the numbers at eirigi's protest was swelled by supporters of other groups who were not able to carry their placards I think there are two points to be made.

1. Sinn Fein had its own protest, The IRSP, 32CSM and RNU had a joint protest in the Markets, the WSM had their own protest and RSF had a commemoration. All of these groups privately and publicly asked their respective members and supporters to attend their respective protests/commemorations. So what organisation is it that these phantom protesters at the eirigi protest are actually members/supporters of?

2. The left and republican scence in Ireand is quite small with most people allegiances being well known. Having been at the protest myself I only spotted 4 people who I believe to be members/supporters of other groups (1 WSM and 3 SF) and they may well have switched their alligance. I spoke to comrades from around the country on this very topic at the protest and they had a similar opinion to me re the very small numbers of non-eirigi members/supporters.

Finally with regard to the numbers at the protest I think it was around the 350 mark ( I think the claim of 400 is a bit high but who's counting). All the media reports I've read and people I've spoken to put the Sinn Fein protest at somewhere between 600 and 1500. Even at 1000 it was only three times larger than the eirigi one which is fairly impressive when you consider SF is 103 years old, has a couple of hundred elected reps, a membership of thousands and a voter base of more than 250,000 compared to eirigi's 2 years, 0 elected reps, a membership in the low 100's (if that) and a voter base of zero. And remember this was eirigi first demo in Belfast and Belfast is the hearland of SF.

All of this demonstrates that eirigi are tapping into a pool of support that is not willing to support the reformist constitutional SF or those republican groups that make up the Republican Forum For Unity.

One of the things that attracts me to eirigi is the fact that is setting a high standard for membership - a welcome change from what many of us have seen in the past - which I believe some are mistaking for elitism. Indeed I believe that at least some of those levelling the charge of elitism are doing so because they themselves were refused membership.

Every organisation must decide its own strategy - which eirigi are clearly doing by being active on the ground. Others could learn a thing or two from them by doing the same instead of spending their time peddaling this 'elitist' nonsense.

by fRANK Thu Nov 06, 2008 18:47

"I did not nor would not accuse you of elitism,mo chara.However i did detect a veiled attempt in your original comment to accuse Eirigi of elitism which you later not only insinuated further to this effect but directly posed the actual question and some points which you raised which i suspect were made with the purpose of supporting your opinion as regards the allegation of elitism.A little bit vague and indirect but your opinion anyway not everybodies."

If eirigi chooses to adopt a position wherein other republican organisations are not welome visibly along side themselves then questioning the motives behind that cannot be deflected with charges of elitism against those who raise the question. All the moreso if eirigi conciously petitions support specifically from otrher organisations then seeks to disbar these organisations from making their presence at such protests known. Why seek specific support yet disbar those from whom they seek this support from making their presence known?

"I as a seasoned campaigner and protester do not think it elitist or even unusual for an organisation to publicly announce an event under its own name to extend invitations to other interested or like minded groups with a requesite that only banners reflecting the organisers name should be present.I have only your word for it that this process of inviting attendees conditionally was initiated by Eirigi and not a reasonable response from Eirigi to a request made by other groups to attend."

I'm forced to consider it elitist that a republican organisation would seek the support of other republican organisations in protesting against an issue such as this whilst demanding that those other organisations refrain from carrying their own banners and making their presence known. And again why does eirigi choose to adopt the position that only their banners be present at an event which has a singular cause as to why republicans would protest against it? There's hardly a clash of policy concerning such events.

"Furthermore i suspect you are veiling a cynical attempt to run down the numbers of actual Eirigi supporters who were actually present in the 400 strong crowd by suggesting that the numbers may have been made up from members of other groups.Why would members of other groups attend when all other interested parties held their own protests at the same time across Belfast?"

I'm not trying to run down anything concerning the numbers merely trying to understand the policy which eirigi has adopted concerning these matters. If the total number of protestors contains non eirigi members but only eirigi banners are present wouldn't it be assumed that all those present where eirigi supporters/members? As to whether other groups would attend given that they were holding their own protests surely the question you should be addressing is why did eirigi invite them in the first place?

"Is it not the case that the Sinn Fein protest march began before Eirigi protest on the day in the City Centre?
Is it not the case that The Forum For Irish Unity held their protest in the Markets area of West Belfast at the same time of Eirigi protest?
If the scenario you are trying to create is the case and members of other groups as mentioned above chose to attend an Eirigi protest instead of one organised by their own group then i feel that says more about where they wish to place their support then it does to support your cynical view that Eirigi bumped the numbers by slight of hand."

Again you fail to address the central point concerning the eirigi policy of their banners only. The protest on Sunday is but an example of this. The question of numbers is a default conclusion given the absence of a valid reason as to why this policy exists. Personally I believe eirigi do not want to be seen associating with other republican groups because I believe they believe it would in somehow harm their project. I'd like to discuss the politics of this reasoning with eirigi people, as I'm sure others would also.

"As regards the question "what is Eirigi problem standing alongside other groups?",i can probably answer that being someone who has been on other protests with some Eirigi members present alongside members of other organisations at events organised by Eirigi and visa versa and that is that i have seen no evidence that they have a problem.This was further supported by the fact that some Eirigi members went to the Markets on Sunday following their protest to lend support."

I'm well aware eirigi people have stood beside other republican groups. I'm also aware that this caused unease because eirigi were not expecting others to bring banners. I'm also well aware that eirigi have been invited to stand along side others, with their banners, but chose to only stand without banners. Why would this be? If it was ok for their personnel to be there why not their banners also?

by ? Thu Nov 06, 2008 18:59

So again, why doesn't eirigi let others carry their banners?

by Frank Thu Nov 06, 2008 19:56

I'm well aware eirigi has no problem sitting down with other non republican groups in broad fronts. The point being made is that they seem very reluctant to sit down with other republican groups to forge a republican alliance to pursue a republican agenda. The groups you mention like CAEUC have absolutely no interest whatsoever in pursuing a separatist agenda. Why wont eirigi sit down with other republicans and try and forge a way forward for a republican agenda?

by Bernard Thu Nov 06, 2008 22:11

First demo I attended in years because of total disilusionment with republican groupings. Well done eirigi. It was very good. Definitely wont be as long til I am back on the streets again. Oh and pass no heed of the begrudgers. The complaining about youse re banners etc has more to do with jealousy than anything else. After all the years that they have been in existence they are jealous at how youse are growing and they are not.

by another eirigi supporter Fri Nov 07, 2008 00:13

Frank,

I hope you accept these answers in the genuine spirit that they are offered.

First up I'm a supporter, not a member of eirigi so I dont speak for them. I do have a number of close friends who are in the party in Dublin so I have a bit of an inside track.

There are two issus here as far as I can see. The first relates to the 'eirigi only banners' format of sundays march. To be honest I consider this one a no-brainer. eirigi have every right to call it whatever they want at their own demo. If people didnt like it they didnt have to go. There was after all three other demos in Belfast that people could go to if they wanted.

Your believe that "eirigi conciously petitions support specifically from other organisations" is just plain wroing. eirigi did sent a letter to a number of left and republican groupings in advance of sundays march to explain the format of the march. This letter DID NOT ask groups for support - it simply informed each organisation of the format of the march. If someone has told you otherwise they've told you a lie. eirigi did of course state that 'all were welcome' at sundays march but that is a standard call-out for most demos and should not be interpreted as a pro-active courting of an organisation.

The second issue relates to your perception of eirigi 'elitism' with regard to other republican groups. No one group has a monopoly on this struggle. Some supporters of the Republican Forum for Unity project are in real danger of heading onto very elitist territory by putting forward a position that anyone who doesn't join the Forum is 'suspect' or not really a republican.OR worse still George Bush territory - 'if you aint with us you're against us'.

eirigi have already communicated to the RFFU that they will not be taking part in it. You may regard this as elitism but surely every group must have a right NOT to join a broad front and not to be attacked for not doing so. Not so long ago republicans were regularly fighting for the right to join broad fronts. Are we now going to have fight for the right NOT to join one?? RSF and the NRF have made similar decisions for their own reasons.

So we both agree that eirigi are willing to work in broad fronts (CAEUC, PANA etc) and we also agree that eirigi have lent support to prisoner-related events organised by both the 32CSM and the NRF.

And we agree that eirigi are not taking part in the RFFU or the joint demos/meetings that it is organising. What I think you are looking for WHY are eirigi not taking part in the RFFU.

If you want the answer to that question I think you need to go back two and a half years to when eirigi started. At that time (when there was no joint 32CSM/IRSP project and nobody was accusing anybody of elitism) many members of the IRSP, RSF and the 32CSM asked 'why have they set up a new group? why didnt they join one of the existing ones?' I think you'll find that people didnt join the existing groups for the same reasons that eirigi are now not joining the RFFU.

All I can give you is my reasons for supporting eirigi instead of the other groups and I believe that many others who are now members or supporters of eirigi have similar views.

Why do I support eirigi?
For republicanism to move forward I believe it needs a credible political vehicle with significant popular support and by significant I mean something at least as big as what SF or the Greens are. Without that support I dont think any organisation will be able to have a serious impact on the political landscape. I cant go into all the reasons why I believe this to be true but it my opinion. I also believe that eirigi has the potential to grow to that kind of size over the coming 5-10 years while maintaining a solid socialist republican position.

Why dont I support another republican group?
With regard to the 32CSM it is dead in the water from the day that Omagh was bombed. It doesn't matter what role the brits played in it or that it was an accident. People in this country will NEVER EVER rally to the 32CSM. That is not an opinion. Its a fact. The ongoing RIRA campaign is going nowhere. Ten years ago it was obvious that the objective conditions didn't exist for the type of campaign they were trying to wage. After ten years the objective conditions are even worse. Finally I think a political party is a far more effective vehicle than the 'movement' model of the 32's.

With regard to the IRSP at least they realise that the conditions for A/S dont exist but they are dead in the water too due to the colourful past of the IRSP/INLA. Again the IRSP will never become the rallying point for significant numbers. And all of their problems arent in the past either. The carry-on of the INLA in Dublin over the last number of years has further marginalised the IRSP to the point of total political irrelevance in the city. And that carry-on continues despite the arrests of late. And the dogs on the streets know it.

With regard to RSF I dont buy into their idealogy so that was a non-starter. And there's the small matter of the CIRA waging a pointless campaign which is achieving nothing other than putting people in jail.

So from my perspective thats why I dont support any group other than eirigi. And for what its worth I think it would be political suicide for eirigi to align itself with those organisations for all of the reasons I have outlined above. And with 400 at the eirigi protest on Sunday and only 50 or so at the RFFU protest there are obviously an amount of people that agree with me.

eirigi has emerged as a rallying point for people who are no longer willing to support SF but clearly dont want to support the RFFU or RSF. That should be welcomed as a good thing. If each of these three vehicles - RSF / eirigi / RFFU are all getting stronger then republicanism overall is getting stronger.

I genuinely wish those in the RFFU well but I think the odds are stacked against them. I could be wrong and if they grow into a major political force I'll gladly eat my words

by Gruffalo - Movement for common sense Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:48

On Monday last the Guardian Website published a review, in blog format, about the movie Hunger. In the review, the jounalist David Cox, shows a blatant racism toward the Irish:

"Perhaps it's all to do with the air of Celtic romance that seems to envelop the Irish even when they're at their most vicious."

He also clearly supports the torture of Political Prisoners. Surely we should have moved beyond this archaic attitude by now. A link to the blog is attached:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/nov/03/hun...ted=1

The movement for common sense calls for Irish people to defend our nation from such attacks and also to make complaints to the relevant authorities such as amnesty international.

by Frank Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:57

"I hope you accept these answers in the genuine spirit that they are offered.

First up I'm a supporter, not a member of eirigi so I dont speak for them. I do have a number of close friends who are in the party in Dublin so I have a bit of an inside track.

There are two issus here as far as I can see. The first relates to the 'eirigi only banners' format of sundays march. To be honest I consider this one a no-brainer. eirigi have every right to call it whatever they want at their own demo. If people didnt like it they didnt have to go. There was after all three other demos in Belfast that people could go to if they wanted.

Your believe that "eirigi conciously petitions support specifically from other organisations" is just plain wroing. eirigi did sent a letter to a number of left and republican groupings in advance of sundays march to explain the format of the march. This letter DID NOT ask groups for support - it simply informed each organisation of the format of the march. If someone has told you otherwise they've told you a lie. eirigi did of course state that 'all were welcome' at sundays march but that is a standard call-out for most demos and should not be interpreted as a pro-active courting of an organisation."

No one is questioning eirigi's right to call their demos as they see fit, this is a strawman argument to deflect attention away from the simple question why?

You may wish to hide behind a hair splitting interpretation of the communication sent by eirigi but the fact that a specific communication was sent in the first place was a clear call for support whether it suits you to admit it or not. If you are going to offer a genuine spirit let it apply to the intent behind your emails also.

"The second issue relates to your perception of eirigi 'elitism' with regard to other republican groups. No one group has a monopoly on this struggle. Some supporters of the Republican Forum for Unity project are in real danger of heading onto very elitist territory by putting forward a position that anyone who doesn't join the Forum is 'suspect' or not really a republican.OR worse still George Bush territory - 'if you aint with us you're against us'.

eirigi have already communicated to the RFFU that they will not be taking part in it. You may regard this as elitism but surely every group must have a right NOT to join a broad front and not to be attacked for not doing so. Not so long ago republicans were regularly fighting for the right to join broad fronts. Are we now going to have fight for the right NOT to join one?? RSF and the NRF have made similar decisions for their own reasons."

Again another strawman argument. No one is suggesting that the Unity Forum has adopted a position you outlined. What does preoccupy those who support it is eirigi's stated aim of working with other groups but its refusal to work with other republican groups. And again the issue is not about eirigi's right but eirigi's reasons. If as you say eirigi communicated with the Unity Forum perhaps you can tell us what they said? I know you have a right NOT to relate what they said but that's not really the issue.

"So we both agree that eirigi are willing to work in broad fronts (CAEUC, PANA etc) and we also agree that eirigi have lent support to prisoner-related events organised by both the 32CSM and the NRF.

And we agree that eirigi are not taking part in the RFFU or the joint demos/meetings that it is organising. What I think you are looking for WHY are eirigi not taking part in the RFFU.

If you want the answer to that question I think you need to go back two and a half years to when eirigi started. At that time (when there was no joint 32CSM/IRSP project and nobody was accusing anybody of elitism) many members of the IRSP, RSF and the 32CSM asked 'why have they set up a new group? why didnt they join one of the existing ones?' I think you'll find that people didnt join the existing groups for the same reasons that eirigi are now not joining the RFFU."

Stating why you will not join another organisation is not stating the reasons as to why another group should be formed. When eirigi was asked this question it obfuscated, and continues to do so. When asked why it broke from PSF it replied disingenously that it hadn't broken away but was formed by ex members. This position was conveniently adopted to avoid addressing the contradictions of having remained in PSF throughout the entire GFA process and now seemingly having a position of being in opposition to it. It is disingenous to proffer the notion that the origins of eirigi are not rooted in the policy direction of PSF and all that interested parties wanted to know was; Which policies did they oppose and why? That remains unanswered.

"Why do I support eirigi?
For republicanism to move forward I believe it needs a credible political vehicle with significant popular support and by significant I mean something at least as big as what SF or the Greens are. Without that support I dont think any organisation will be able to have a serious impact on the political landscape. I cant go into all the reasons why I believe this to be true but it my opinion. I also believe that eirigi has the potential to grow to that kind of size over the coming 5-10 years while maintaining a solid socialist republican position."

You don't have a solid socialist republican position. If you did you'd be engaging with other republican organisations to convince them of the merits of your position. Equally if you cannot address the provenance of eirigi with honesty and explain exactly what part of the PSF programme did not live up to your republican socialist position then it is inevitable that serious questions will always remain concerning the eirigi project. And this inability or unwillingness to do so reinforces the many doubts about eirigi and what exactly it is it stands for. Eirigi have chosen to enter a theatre of conflict it would be nice to know why?

"Why dont I support another republican group?
With regard to the 32CSM it is dead in the water from the day that Omagh was bombed. It doesn't matter what role the brits played in it or that it was an accident. People in this country will NEVER EVER rally to the 32CSM. That is not an opinion. Its a fact. The ongoing RIRA campaign is going nowhere. Ten years ago it was obvious that the objective conditions didn't exist for the type of campaign they were trying to wage. After ten years the objective conditions are even worse. Finally I think a political party is a far more effective vehicle than the 'movement' model of the 32's."

This goes to the heart of the matter. What you are actually saying is that eirigi is a rebranded Sinn Fein. And it begs the question; if eirigi believes the conditions are not right for armed struggle are eirigi working toward creating those conditions or will it be the case that if those conditions do materialise and the IRA are waging a military campaign that eirigi will cheer them on from the sidelines? Will it be a case of trying to extract political kudos for 'good' military actions and then going tut tut for 'bad' military actions? Or is just the case that the mantra 'the conditions aren't right' is just that, a mantra, allowing you to speak out of both sides of your mouth? Is it the political belief that the core cause of the conflict can only be addressed by using non contentious means? This sounds like eirigi putting themselves up as a soft option, the regalia of struggle but not the danger?

"So from my perspective thats why I dont support any group other than eirigi. And for what its worth I think it would be political suicide for eirigi to align itself with those organisations for all of the reasons I have outlined above. And with 400 at the eirigi protest on Sunday and only 50 or so at the RFFU protest there are obviously an amount of people that agree with me.

eirigi has emerged as a rallying point for people who are no longer willing to support SF but clearly dont want to support the RFFU or RSF. That should be welcomed as a good thing. If each of these three vehicles - RSF / eirigi / RFFU are all getting stronger then republicanism overall is getting stronger.

I genuinely wish those in the RFFU well but I think the odds are stacked against them. I could be wrong and if they grow into a major political force I'll gladly eat my words"

And this just makes my case. You want a nice clean struggle. Nice clean issues. Nice clean tactics. The struggle is not about being a rallying point against PSF its about rallying around the core issue of the conflict and the republican solution to that. You say you had 400 people on Sunday, afraid to be associated with somone elses banner lest it do you political dmage. 400 people met in Derry last night unafraid of who was there yet willing to engage with all who was there to move the republican project forward. I trust you can see the difference?

by John - Republican Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:07

Eirigi has emerged as a front group for those who wish to derail the SF project but still want to pose as republicans. I can think of nothing that Eirigi has ever done that could not have been done within SF. Instead these egotistical elitists are intent on setting up their own organisation and becoming yet another anti Sinn Féin group more obsessed with attacking and undermining SF than with attacking or undermining the Brits.

Shame!

by eh hello John??? Fri Nov 07, 2008 13:59

Eh hello John?? What planet are you on?

Where did you get the following from?:

"....Instead these egotistical elitists are intent on setting up their own organisation and becoming yet another anti Sinn Féin group more obsessed with attacking and undermining SF than with attacking or undermining the Brits"

What's that all about??

eirígí is not intent on setting up an organisation - éirígí was set up 2.5 years ago as an organisation. This time has been spent building éirígí into a credible & sustainable organisation & vehicle through which the republican struggle might once again become a challenge to the capitalist/colonial system that dominates the economic, social & political life of Ireland

How are éirígí 'anti-SF' in the sense that you state? What attacks? Was the anti-RIR march not clearly directed at the British occupation?

Who is attacking other republican groups??

And Frank - give it a rest, and get on with building your IRFU or whatever. Show us some results. Build the alternative and convince those who are putting their almost exclusive focus on building their organisation that their interests are better served through involvement in the broad front you advocate. Build something worthwhile. Don't expect people to buy into something/organisations that up to this point in time have gone nowhere. If you can't see why some republicans would be reluctant to take the focus off what they are doing and throw their lot in with the IRFU then I seriously question your understanding of both current 'objective conditions' and the need for new thinking on the part of the republican movement(s) .

by Daniel - Socialist Party Fri Nov 07, 2008 14:52

The Socialist Party's statement on the RIR parade and the protests is available at www.socialistpartyni.net

by Magilla Fri Nov 07, 2008 16:23

Thats pathetic daniel. Absolutely no reason given for not opposing the RIR parade and welcome home. So much for for being anti-war

by another eirigi supporter Fri Nov 07, 2008 17:29

Frank,

You asked a question. I answered it as best I could. You're welcome for the time I took to do that.

I'll try one last time in a very short summary.

eirigi dont want and have not asked for the help or assistance of any the groups within the RFFU.

They have decided not to join the RFFU for valid reasons as outlined in my previous answer.

You and others within the RFFU should stop worrying about eirigi and get on with building your organisation.

One of us is wrong and only time will tell who.

by Spencer Fri Nov 07, 2008 18:30

Frank,

In your lengthy answer to 'another eirigi supporter' you completly failed to address his/her reasons for not supporting the 32CSM/IRSP by instead claiming that eirigi is basically just the same as PSF.

Can you stop with the eirigi bashing and answer the issues raised.

Do you deny that the Omagh bombing terminally damaged any chance of the 32CSM developing into a serious political player?
Do you not agree that the RIRA campaign is going nowhere?
Do you deny that the INLA (and by association the IRSP) are up to their armpits in skullduggery?

These are the facts - the realilty - the undeniable truth - that is going to cripple the IRFU.

Republicanism needs a new start with a new organisation and eirigi might just be it.

by Frank Fri Nov 07, 2008 19:40

Clearly there is a reticence amongst eirigi supporters to address basic questions concerning their provenance and their relationship with other republican groupings. In fairness to 'another eirigi supporter' he attempted to give reasons which only amounted to an emotional reaction to events on the ground as opposed to a political analysis of where things are going. I believe eirigi have chosen the soft option, to engage in struggle, but only up to a point.

As for not engaging in the RFFU I'm not aware of eirigi's reasons for not doing so unless 'another eirigi supporters' opinions are in fact their official position. If that is the case its completely devoid of any political reasoning.

As for worrying about eirigi I do believe they will prove to be a benign force because they are not a reveloutionary movement and their attitude toward other republican organisations is proof of this. Their fear of other groups is even more compelling. The questions I posed about the very raison detre of eirigi remain unanswered because eirigi does not want to address the contradictions inherent in its own provenance. Again why exactly did eirigi enter a theatre of conflict? On what issue? The reason for the existence of other republican groupings is clearly laid out as is the basis on which they entered the conflict. Why can't eirigi be as forthcoming?

Spencer.

Firstly if you read my post you'll see exactly how I responded to his observations; with political observations of my own which are logical conclusions of what he posted.

Secondly, your questions:

No, I do not believe that the Omagh Bombing terminally damaged the 32CSM. I say this because it is a growing movement and is the only republican organisation which actually articulated a challenge against British Occupation. And this is what it is about afterall, the ending of that occupation. And again the question must be posed; when the 32CSM were articulating arguments against the process which led to the GFA, and IRA Volunteers also, where were the people who went on to form eirigi? When republicans were standing up to the plate to challenge fundamentally the direction which the PSF/PIRA leaderships were taking where was the support from those who went on to form eirigi? Or can I presume that your answer will be 'the conditions weren't right then'? Sure the 32CSM took a massive hit after Omagh, perhaps that's why it happened, perhaps not, but I'd have to place more faith in the political calibre who can take such hits and continue to grow over a political calibre who's afraid of a banner.

As for the RIRA campaign going nowhere. I don't nrecessarily share that view because I'm unsure of your view concerning where exactly an armed campaign should be going. The nature of any armed struggle is conditioned by its political surroundings. A ten year campaign of bombings may have negligable political effect whereas a singular assassination can cause a world war. But again, since you raised it, are you only supportive of military efforts which in your view are going somewhere and if that's the case, if they are not going somewhere what do YOU do to change that?

As for the INLA and the IRSP. Without question there are those who have brought that tradition into disrepute, but a tradition which gave us Seamus Costello, hungerstrikers and a true working class republican socialism deserves more than a curt dismissal from a group claiming the same ideology based on tabloid sources. You'll note I could of said 'you had better ask them' but I chose engagement with you instead.

by stormbringer Fri Nov 07, 2008 23:02

Frank said "As for worrying about eirigi I do believe they will prove to be a benign force because they are not a reveloutionary movement"

And you think the 32csm and the IRSP are?

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:19 "At Large" in Dublin

For what it's worth this is my 2c (could be an accurate evaluation!) to the 3 threads of reports on the anti-war demonstrations in Belfast last weekend in response to the R.I.R. parade.

Congratulations to all who got out on the streets to make an anti-war statement in what looked like a potentially dangerous situation (hyped up by the media etc).

Sorry I didn't make it explanation here....
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89757&comment_limit=0&c...38333

Sorry there wasn't a radical ecumenical christian presence bigger and brighter than we mustered for the visit of Emperor Bush. If I had advance noticed I would have prioritised trying to get this together with friends in Belfast.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87990

The most sginificant point I would like to make is that the anti-war movement is so deflated, partly by political self harm/partly by how good the elites are at having wars these daze while keeping broader society sedated and disengaged, that more grief for the government is coming from war veterans and military families than a civilian anti-war movement in the West.
See www.couragetoresist.org
See www.ivaw.org
see Rose Gentle, Cindy Sheehan, Reg Keyes, Cindy Sheehan, Joshua Casteel, Kelly Dougherty, Jimmy Massey et al

It's important to treat these young man and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with dignity as human beings and with noniolent opposition to their exploits and exploitation. There are many future allies among them and when they turn, they are usually more courageous, commited and sharper than your average Feb 15th, 2003 peace marcher.

The three threads have, as what they call in the U.S., a lot of "Monday morning quarterbacking". Some of this is useful. It is always essential to debrief after such actions, try and improve the lines of communication among various participating groups (obviously there is a lot of baggage among some fo the folks and groups on the streets last Sunday!). Some of it is petty point scoring where you begin to wonder whether brand enhancement of ones political party/grouping was the essential motivation than opposition to continuing wars and failure to redress the past wars etc etc. (maybe its a mix of both in some cases!?!)

The ciritcism of Eirgri to have a closed (to other banners) action is not relevant. A mass movement doesn't have to take place in one place. It was a good thing there was at least four manifestations last week against the ever expanding and escalting wars.

Once again many thanx to all who hit the streets

by Mr Info Sat Nov 08, 2008 13:22

Frank,

it is now clear that you are a supporter of the 32CSM and the RIRA. if you had made that plain at the start it would have been much easier for people to understand your point of view. as a supporter of one republican group would it not be better to get on with building your base - rather then attacking another republican group?

it would serve you better to promote your analysis on its own merits as oppossed to in comparison with eirigi, the provos or anyone else.

you ask the questions - 'why exactly did eirigi enter a theatre of conflict? On what issue? The reason for the existence of other republican groupings is clearly laid out as is the basis on which they entered the conflict. Why can't eirigi be as forthcoming? '

here is the answer from the eirigi constitution which can be found on their website. it all seems quite clear to me. if you spend a bit of time on their website (particularly in their extensive news archives) you will find out much more about them.

1.0 Name
1.1 The name of the organisation shall be éirígí.

2.0 Principles
2.1 The national territory of Ireland includes the island of Ireland, its
waterways, airspace, islands and seas.
2.2 The right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland, and to the
unfettered control of Irish destinies, is sovereign and indefeasible.
2.3 All people are born equal and free and are entitled, by right, to all those
things necessary for them to fulfil their potential as human beings.

3.0 Objectives
3.1 To effect a British withdrawal from the occupied six counties.
3.2 To establish a thirty-two county Irish Socialist Republic based upon the
principles of sovereignty, democracy, liberty, justice, equality, community and
international solidarity.
3.3 To ensure, that in such a Republic, the right of every person to an equal
share of the nation’s wealth and wealth producing resources be guaranteed.
Furthermore, each person shall be guaranteed, as of right, equal influence and
control over all spheres of economic and political power in that same
Republic.
3.4 To end all Irish involvement in those actions and alliances which infringe
upon the sovereignty and independence of other nations and peoples and to
replace such actions and alliances with ones based upon the principles of
international co-operation and solidarity.
3.5. To promote the revival of widespread, everyday usage of the Irish
language across Ireland, and to encourage a deeper understanding and
appreciation of the role of Irish culture in contemporary Ireland.

4.0 Means
4.1 By the organising of effective political campaigns aimed at highlighting the
injustice inherent in the joint system of capitalism and imperialism, and the
promotion of a Socialist Republican alternative.
4.2 Through the widespread promotion of a Socialist Republican critique of
contemporary Ireland and the wider world.
4.3 Through the building of alliances with other groups and individuals, both
nationally and internationally who share objectives similar to those of éirígí.
4.4 Through the contesting of elections where the contesting of such elections
is deemed to advance éirígí’s objectives. An Ard-Fheis alone can authorise the
contesting of elections and participation in institutions to which members are
elected.

by Frank Sat Nov 08, 2008 18:28

Mr Info when Bertie Ahern claims to be a socialist and an Irish Republican should we just accept it because he says so or should we examine exactly where he is coming from and his previous political actions to evaluate his claim? Same goes for eirigi. What they have in their Constitution can be found ostensibly in the PSF Constitution so why leave them to form eirigi? Standing on big broad statements concerning the ownership of Ireland is all well and good but they had no problem being members of PSF when that party, with its support for the GFA, as a political action conceded that the island of Ireland was not the sovereign territory of the Irish people. Seeking clarity on seemingly basic contradictions is a fundamental political prerequsite when evaluating the credibility of political and ideological claims. Or maybe the time wasn't right then either to address the contradictions?

by Strange that Frank?? Sat Nov 08, 2008 21:27

Strange that Frank how you seem to have gone from querying éirígí on why they won't sit at the IRFU to now, seemingly, implying that éirígí are somehow not 'real' republicans. What's with the obsession Frank?? They can't be all that attractive,and bad, at the same time now can they?? Which is it. Hmmm......

by Frank Sat Nov 08, 2008 22:03

It seems eirigi just don't like answering questions. Perhaps the conditions aren't right for that also.

by obvious Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:51

"Why do I support eirigi?
For republicanism to move forward I believe it needs a credible political vehicle with significant popular support and by significant I mean something at least as big as what SF or the Greens are. Without that support I dont think any organisation will be able to have a serious impact on the political landscape. I cant go into all the reasons why I believe this to be true but it my opinion. I also believe that eirigi has the potential to grow to that kind of size over the coming 5-10 years while maintaining a solid socialist republican position."

Sounds exactly like the pragmatic opportunism of the Sinners elctoral machine. Hop onto every grass roots campaign and inititive there is about, and in the absence of any actuall analysis or politics Eirigi is just an activist vechicle, fusing the romance of'activity' , the recent whiff of gunpowder from the not too distant past, and an idelogical attachment to 'republicanism' whatever that look like in the 21st century.

maybe im being cynical, but ots clear that erigi are making sure they arent within spitting distant or armed republicans whenever thay actually get to kill a PSNI person

Its not about wether eirigi is a sinn fein front, its about the fact that erirgi leadership have there politicval identity and skills and shape shifting forged in the cyncical and savvy sinn fein machinery. I think people wuld be daft not to see that one coming.

by Very Obvious Tue Nov 11, 2008 00:23

Obvious,

Given that the main criticism of eirigi is emenating from other small non-GFA-supportive groups the only thing that is obvious to me is the green-eyed-monster.

The IRSP have had 35 years to build a serious republican socialist movement on this island and have failed.

The 32 CSM have had more than a decade to do likewise and have also failed.

Last Sunday's demo was a stark illustration of this fact when their combined efforts put somewhere in the region of 50 people on the streets in the markets. This in comparison to somewhere in the region of 400 at the eirigi protest.

Those in the IRSP and 32 CSM that assumed they were going to take up the mantle of republicansim that sf had dropped are now realising that eirigi is emerging as a rallying point for many republicans. Instead of knocking eirigi they should ask themselves some hard questions as to why a relatively new organisation such as eirigi has been able to attract so many republicans of such high calibre?

And one of the answers to that question is that republicans dont like inter-republican slagging. eirigi have never engaged in it - not sf-bashing or 32CSM-bashing or RSF-bashing or IRSP-bashing. Instead they get on with organising professional campaigns. Some other groups seem to be obsessed with such inter-republican-bashing as demonstrated by some of the posters above.

Jealousy is not only ugly it's very transparent.

by Mr Info Tue Nov 11, 2008 00:39

frank - you are of course right - just because ahern claims to be a socialist doesn't mean that he is one. the same goes for eirigi and the 32 county sov movement. what we have to do is judge any organisation on the basis of what they say and do. in eirigi's case i've already posted a section of their constitutions for you. below i'm posting a section of their paper on imperialism. the section covers the good friday and st andrews agreements. hopefully this will explain even further the platform that eirigi are standing on. they may of course be lying as might any group that ever claimed to stand for anything.

so for my money's worth i'm judging eirigi not only on what they say but also what they do and so far they haven't put a foot wrong in promoting republicanism and challenging capitalism and brit rule. can the same be said for the 32's?

From the eirigi website:

"...The most recent of such treaties, namely the Belfast and St Andrews Agreements, of 1998 and 2006 respectively, contain many of the features that have defined British treaties in Ireland for centuries. Three such features stand out most clearly.

Firstly, central to both of these agreements is an absolute acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. The constitutional status of Britain’s occupation will not change until a majority of those within the occupied six counties so decide– in effect one sixth of the Irish people will hold a veto over the other five-sixths.

Secondly Britain’s long history of nurturing false divisions in Ireland continues with power being allocated on the basis of a crude sectarian head-count designed to deepen and prolong false divisions along religious lines.

Finally, as with all British treaties, there is the apparent potential for those who support Irish freedom to achieve a long-term victory if they are willing to support the status quo in the short-term. In this the British government is at its most devious. Britain has conceded enough to convince some who oppose British rule in Ireland that these latest treaties are substantially different to all previous treaties and therefore worthy of support. In this the British draw upon their not insubstantial experience in negotiations and hope to neutralise the demand for British withdrawal and Irish Freedom. Failing this the British hope to lay the seeds of division among those who would nominally desire Irish freedom but disagree upon how it may be achieved.

We in éirígí are convinced that these two most recent treaties are considerably more likely to solidify British rule in Ireland than they are to end it.

Others have argued that Britain no longer has ambitions of empire and is in fact preparing to withdraw from Ireland, using the establishment of the Stormont assembly and increased levels of cross-border co-operation to support this hypothesis.

We in éirígí reject this analysis. We believe that the evidence indicates the opposite to be true. Britain is simply re-shaping and modernising the occupation and in doing so is attempting to portray her role in Ireland as neutral while simultaneously co-opting an ever larger section of the population into supporting the occupation. The current British government have over the last number of years implemented a policy of regionalised parliaments and assemblies with the objective of securing the long-term integrity of the so called “United Kingdom”....."

by ryan Tue Nov 11, 2008 08:44

i think eirigi have done quite well for themselves in such a short amount of time. while there are certain and major political differences they seem a decent lot and in that there are most like rsf. ive also noticed that rsfers dont seem to go so much for these eirigi conspiracies and attacks as the 32s and irsp do. as has been outlined above both eirigi and rsf (and anyone sensible really) would be crazy to get involve with that irsp/32 project .

depending on how you view republicanism either eirigi or rsf are the only viable options. best of luck to both of them